Both miss the point of divine revelation.
Why did God give us the Bible? Was it so that we could parse our way through His divine mind and recreate an image of Him that makes sense to us?
In my interactions with strict 5 pointers and open theists in the past, I have always left the conversation amazed at how much the other person thought they comprehended about God.
Though Scripture is certainly adequate to lead us into right living and doctrine, it doesn’t propose to explain everything there is to be known about God. I have come to see God as a Father and myself as a child. When God speaks to me, it is always in a way that limits Him(so that I can understand). Certainly God reveals himself to us (His Word, the Holy Spirit, etc.) but it is always partial…it has to be. Our problem is that we think we are more capable than we really are. We perceive ourselves as composing an “earth shaking” treatise on theology, while God sees a child’s crayon drawing of stick figures with no clothes. I’m not saying that God isn’t proud of our efforts. In fact, I’m sure he puts every one of our drawings on His fridge. The problem is that they always, at least in part, miss the point. Did God reveal His purpose in “election” so that I could concoct the doctrine of reprobation, or rather that I could be comforted by the surety of our relationship? Did God say that He “changed” his mind, so that I could develop a theology that limits His sovereignty (or redefines it), or so I would understand that there is a real-time dynamic aspect to my faith. In my opinion, neither view takes adequately into account the limitations of human reason, the mystery of certain doctrines in Scripture, and the beauty of God’s multi-angular interaction with humanity.
Neither answers the problem of evil.
In my interactions with open theist particularly, there is a sense that the problem of evil is better answered by asserting that God didn’t know that certain evils were going to happen. From the beginning, I have been confused by this point. Typically it goes something like this: “Shirley, a single mother of two, was struck and killed in a drunk driving accident." When the question gets asked: “Why didn’t God stop this from happening?” One can simply respond: “God didn’t know that was going to happen.” While this sounds good in the moment, it doesn’t answer the question for two reasons.
God could have intervened in the moment.
Why didn’t God intervene while it was happening? Surely He saw the drunk person getting into their car. Surely He saw the car approaching Shirley . Why, then, didn’t He stop this tragedy from coming to pass?
God could have raised Shirley from the dead.
We all know Scripture references where God reverses the effects of death (I Kings 17, Luke 8, John 11). Why didn’t He raise Shirley?
An open theist would have to answer this question just like the rest of us, so what then is the benefit of Open Theism for answering the questions of Theodicy? In my opinion…none. At some level we all need to live out the tension of human free-will and divine providence. I don’t think God gave us the equipment to take it any farther. What we know is that God lets people experience the consequences of their choices, and that He remains (a good) God in the midst of it. We know that we never need to fear, and that no power or love is greater than God’s. A right view of God is never tension free, and will always require faith and faithfulness. God is God and we are not. As a seminarian, I always need to be reminded of this one.
These are my thoughts…what are yours? Feel free to push back.
After reading your post I get the impression that your critique is mostly directed at a type of dogmatism that is self-confident in its ability to accurately describe areas of the Christian faith that are typically relegated to the realm of mystery. I have often heard this critique voiced against segments of medieval scholasticism and later forms of protestant scholasticism. Am I understanding your perspective accurately? If so, would you say that these approaches rely too much on human reason? Is it their theological method that you find problematic as well as their theological conclusions (or any one of the two)? Do you have any suggestions for a balanced hermeneutical and theological approach?
ReplyDeleteI think you’re hearing me right. The danger of course is that we overemphasize the mystery of divine revelation and then become dogmatic in the opposite regard. For me, it is a question of intent. What did God intend for us to understand? The sanctity of marriage? Yes. Divine providence in its fullness? No. At this level ecumenical consensus is helpful only to keep us honest, but not to help us figure it out. My only encouragement to (myself and) the HMH readers, is to allow the mystery of election to give them comfort and assurance, without trying to force it into (or out of) their theological paradigm.
ReplyDelete“In my interactions with strict 5 pointers and open theists in the past, I have always left the conversation amazed at how much the other person thought they comprehended about God. “
ReplyDeleteMy response – So do you leave conversations with people who feel they know nothing about God satisfied with their theology?
Though Scripture is certainly adequate to lead us into right living and doctrine, it doesn’t propose to explain everything there is to be known about God. I have come to see God as a Father and myself as a child. When God speaks to me, it is always in a way that limits Him(so that I can understand). Certainly God reveals himself to us (His Word, the Holy Spirit, etc.) but it is always partial…it has to be. Our problem is that we think we are more capable than we really are.
“In my opinion, neither view takes adequately into account the limitations of human reason, the mystery of certain doctrines in Scripture, and the beauty of God’s multi-angular interaction with humanity.”
My response – It seems that you have simply built a straw man here. Which 5 pointer or open theist is standing by their construction of God and saying it is the absolute correct construction? Who does not approach theology with humility and acknowledges we only know in part. You seem to be disagreeing with a position that doesn’t even exists to try and prove a point.
So what is the point of divine revelation? You say they both miss the point because they think they have it all worked out (again I believe this to be a straw man). What is the middle position that you are advocating for? You state that Scripture does reveal God but always in a limited way. If that is true then every picture we try to draw will be crayon drawings. Should we stop drawing simply because we have crayons or should we not go on and try to articulate the best position we can?
“Why didn’t God intervene while it was happening? “
My response – Some open theists are beginning to answer this question and I hope to research it more (as you know) in my thesis. Some will say that he has self-limited Himself and thus could not have superseded Shirley’s free will. What is your answer? Why didn’t God intervene and stop Shirley from dying?
“We all know Scripture references where God reverses the effects of death (I Kings 17, Luke 8, John 11). Why didn’t He raise Shirley?”
My response – Good question. I am currently in transition on how I believe God works in and through miracles so I cannot answer this myself. Again I would ask, how do you answer it?
I would like to pose a different situation, one that I hope to work with in my thesis. We both have young children and cherish them and their innocence. So instead of it being Shirley dying in a drunk driving accident, what if it’s the rape of our toddlers? A process that is not done in a second, evil that isn’t just over and done with in one moment but goes on for far too long. Are you comfortable with the tension of “consequences and providence” even in this situation? Where do you see God in this situation as the evil is happening? I think there are only two options
1) He cannot stop the evil happening in the moment.
2) He wont stop the evil from happening in the moment.
Maybe you would like to offer a third option, but for me that is what it comes down to.
An open theist would have to answer this question just like the rest of us, so what then is the benefit of Open Theism for answering the questions of Theodicy?
My response – The benefit is that they do not see God as foreknowing of horrible evil and yet doing nothing to stop it. The benefit is that they do not see God as foreordaining evil for some “greater purpose”. I struggle to worship a God that knows of the rape of my child, or worse yet forces it to happen, and does nothing to stop it. So for myself there is a real benefit in Open Theism’s response to the problem of evil, it allows me to keep my faith in a loving God.
As a follow up, I would like to ask more specifically about how you determine a theological position on key doctrines. For example, the Anglican tradition mentions Scripture, tradition, and reason as three key sources that need to be consulted when arriving at a theological conclusion (Wesley added a fourth source to this scheme: experience). Is your view on election (or other theological issues) informed by some basic sources. From my perspective, scriptural support, ecumenical consensus, and other sources help the theologian to transcend (not in an exhaustive sense, but partially) his or her limited world view (and particular context) to see larger, transcendent principles and themes.
ReplyDeleteMy background is Wesleyan-Holiness so I would add the fourth.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not think we can transcend our limited world view. We can try to see how other people may approach particular theology or situations but ultimately we are gruonded in our own experiences and culture.
So do I hear you saying that heritage equals identity?
ReplyDeleteAs a non-theologian I have a simple question. What do questions about the Lord’s Sovereignty, knowledge, or limits/lack of limits have to do with everyday life and practice? I know that on a very basic level how we view God effects how we relate to Him, but on a practical level, the Bible teaches us everything that we need in order to live in Him and follow Him rightly. As we know, our young children don’t understand us fully, but they know that we are their parent and as a result learn what it means to live in love and obedience with us. I tend to side with Elisabeth Elliot in her book “The Liberty of Obedience” that if we seek the Lord and obey Him, we will have freedom in Him.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteI haven't built a "straw man", because I wasn't formulating a position. I only set out to show that Open Theism doesn’t answer the question any better than traditional views. I am not saying that we shouldn't try, but I am saying that Open Theism doesn't answer the questions that it appears open theists have set out to answer.
Personally, I am comfortable with the tension, especially since there is NO alternative. As I said in the post, God didn't give us the tools to answer some questions. Keep drawing, but recognize it for what it is.
Question: If God "limits himself" why does He, if he knows bad things are happening (in general of course)? Is parental neglect comforting? For me, it doesn't help to say that God limits himself from looking out for the ones He loves. As I said, Open Theism cannot, for me, answer the question. Using your analogy; because I know there are child molesters in the world, I use every faculty I have to watch over and protect my children. I do not believe that God “limits himself” in this way, nor do I believe he would plan such a thing. God allows people to do evil things, but it grieves Him. Maybe He withholds judgment, because in order to be just, He would have to judge everyone (maybe similar to 2 Peter 3:9). Again, there is a tension, but I’m comfortable trusting God with it.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteSo what if one's experiences include other cultures/backgrounds, and/or relationships with persons from other cultures/backgrounds? Or what if African theologians are trained in Western academies? How does that fit into the view that one's position cannot transcend one's cultural experiences. Your assertion might be a bit reductionistic.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI would like to supplement my comments/posts by saying that I respect you, both for asking tough questions and for putting in the time to try and answer them from an informed position. An apologetic for God's love and His desire for relationship is both admirable and necessary.
Blessings
@ Jacob
ReplyDelete"So do I hear you saying that heritage equals identity? "
My response - certainly not. Heritage is something that shapes our identity but it is not the same as our identity. Let's say that someone leaves the USA and moves to France because they want to be French instead of American. They can do so, they can become ingrained in the society and identity of a french person but ultimately they cannot remove the time they spent in America from the development of who they are.
Even when we change our identities we are still grounded in our past experiences.
Another way to say it: our past will always inform our present and future.
@ Corinne
ReplyDelete“ What do questions about the Lord’s Sovereignty, knowledge, or limits/lack of limits have to do with everyday life and practice?”
My response – I can only speak for myself so the question becomes “what do questions about the Lord’s sovereignty and knowledge have to do with Dan Smitley’s everyday life and practice.”
Because I believe in free will I believe my actions have significant value. If I don’t feed the hungry, clothe the naked, warm the homeless then I believe that is my fault, not God’s. I don’t believe it was God’s plan for me to ignore them and have someone else do those actions. So if I do ignore them it is against God’s desire for my life and theirs and if they die because of my inaction well that is on me and not God. So for myself, God’s knowledge of the future forces me to realize that my inactivity may be allowing injustice to spread in the world and that I really am the hands and feet of the body of Christ.
Thank you though for challenging us to remember theology is not about philosophical discussion but needs to have practical implications. I am always in need of that reminder.
@ phil
ReplyDelete“but I am saying that Open Theism doesn't answer the questions that it appears open theists have set out to answer.”
My response – You seem to be working under the assumption that open theists have set out to answer a specific question(s). I would say that there is no question they are attempting to answer, instead they are trying to bring to light an alternative way to view God’s power, knowledge, and sovereignty. I think it’s a bad statement to say that open theists have failed at their task and yet do not provide what you believe their task is that they failed at.
“Personally, I am comfortable with the tension, especially since there is NO alternative.”
My response – If there is no other alternative than to live with the tension of “consequences and providence” that seems to say all discussion of theodicy is pointless because in the end we have are only able to live in the tension of consequences and providence. Sucks to hear my thesis is pointless.
“If God "limits himself" why does He, if he knows bad things are happening (in general of course)?”
My response - I believe he doesn’t know bad things are going to happen, even in general. I believe God created this universe with the hope that humanity would not chose to sin and chose evil. He created with belief in humanity. So evil was not an actuality in creation but only a possibility.
“So what if one's experiences include other cultures/backgrounds, and/or relationships with persons from other cultures/backgrounds? Or what if African theologians are trained in Western academies? How does that fit into the view that one's position cannot transcend one's cultural experiences.”
My response – Then those other cultures and backgrounds shape that persons theology and way of viewing things. I am not using “world view” in the sense that “all Americans have a world view”, but instead that we all are viewing the world in a specific way. We have all gone through experiences, had conversations, read books, laughed at jokes, had political freedom, went through oppressive, and generally done things differently. These differences are what shapes our world view.
So again I do not believe we can transcend the way we view things. We can try to see other theological traditions or cultural understandings view things but ultimately we will not be able to see it the same way they do because our lives are too different.
Dan thanks for responding to my questions. Here are my thoughts...
ReplyDelete"I would say that there is no question they are attempting to answer, instead they are trying to bring to light an alternative way to view God’s power, knowledge, and sovereignty."
Why an alternative? In other words, Open Theism must be asserting that something is broken in the traditional theological paradigm. My understanding of Open Theism (limited as it is) from short readings of Boyd, Pinnock, and Oord is that questions of theodicy play a motivating role (though not the only motivation).
"Sucks to hear my thesis is pointless."
Absolutely not! Please hear me say that I do not think that all 'drawing is pointless" ( I am coloring too) just limited (I hear you say that you agree with this point). My issue with Open Theism is that it rejects God's omniscience. For me, this is a significant break from what the Bible teaches about God (my interpretation) and the consensus of the church for millennia. The argument I have most often heard from open theists is that the traditional views (Calvinism and Arminianism) are not tenable or philosophically/theologically consistent (Hence my challenge that Open Theism fares no better). Would you be willing to concede that Reformed and/or Arminian theology are reasonable and/or Biblical?
"I believe he doesn’t know bad things are going to happen, even in general."
So if a drunk driver gets into his or her car and starts driving... God doesn't assume this will still be the case moments into the "unknown" future?
"So again I do not believe we can transcend the way we view things. We can try to see other theological traditions or cultural understandings view things but ultimately we will not be able to see it the same way they do because our lives are too different."
Agreed...we will not see them in exactly the same way; though I think it can be tempting to oversimplify this issue.
Personally, I answer the problem of evil by letting humans be responsible for their choices. I agree with your response to Corrie (above) though I am not an open theist (and though I am comfortable with God’s providential reality, even if I don’t understand it). Bad things happen because God let’s people choose, and He lets them experience the consequences of their choices. For me, it is unnecessary and unhelpful to assert that God doesn’t know the future. I have attempted to show, that at least in relation to theodicy, Open Theism doesn’t really offer a more tenable alternative.
These are my opinions… I respect yours though I disagree with your conclusion, and I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts/insights as you continue your research.
Response to Dan's comments:
ReplyDelete"I personally do not think we can transcend our limited world view. We can try to see how other people may approach particular theology or situations but ultimately we are gruonded in our own experiences and culture."
[...]
"So again I do not believe we can transcend the way we view things. We can try to see other theological traditions or cultural understandings view things but ultimately we will not be able to see it the same way they do because our lives are too different."
I agree with Jacob's account of 'transcend' according to which there is both *partial* transcendence and *exhaustive* ("From my perspective, scriptural support, ecumenical consensus, and other sources help the theologian to transcend (not in an exhaustive sense, but partially) his or her limited world view (and particular context) to see larger, transcendent principles and themes.").
More generally, the concept 'transcend' is not an all-or-nothing concept; rather, it is a continuous concept going from complete to no transcendence. The very fact that people of differing viewpoints can have conversations like the one in this post suggests that *some* transcending can occur. People transcend any time they learn general or universal terms that have inter-subjective validity (and we then build transcendent principles out of such general terms).
Using terms like 'ultimately' to describe transcending differences does not seem helpful in conversations like these since we are generally interested in the great degree of overlap in the human experience that enables partial transcendence rather than reaching some 'ultimate' transcendence.
Good point Marcus... thanks for drawing that out from Jacob's observation.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe it is accurate to say, "BOTH miss the point of Divine revelation..." I am an Atavist and an Open Theist and, when engaged in discussions with Calvinists there definitely seems to be a huge disconnect between the point of the several stories, narratives and choices--any which we may choose to pick and discuss. I'm not claiming to know all the answers; I don't perceive the architects of OT claimed as much either. In the case of the Israelite's and their crossing the Red Sea,it seems to be the point of the story (Divine Revelation) that God had hopes for their entire deliverance into the Land of Milk and Honey. Yet, because of choices made along the way, he had to cut them down and cut them off--almost 100% of them. Only two men from the original crossing walked into the Land God had hoped, but subsequently denied entry. OT grapples with the entire narrative in a much different way than our Calvinist counterparts. And I don't agree that Open Theists are missing the point--Calvinists are.
ReplyDelete